Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27955685›Full record

SynthesisTrials2016

The magnitude and temporal changes of response in the placebo arm of surgical randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Karolina A Wartolowska, Benjamin G Feakins, Gary S Collins, Jonathan Cook, Andrew Judge, Ines Rombach, Benjamin J F Dean, James A Smith, Andrew J Carr

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Contextual effects: how to, and how not to, quantify them.BMC medical research methodology · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. The evolution ofFrontiers in neurology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Decompression nerve surgery for diabetic neuropathy: a structured review of published clinical trials.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Karolina A WartolowskaOxford NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. karolina.wartolowska@ndorms.ox.ac.uk.
Benjamin G FeakinsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gary S CollinsBotnar Institute of Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jonathan CookBotnar Institute of Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrew JudgeBotnar Institute of Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ines RombachOxford NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Benjamin J F DeanOxford NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
James A SmithBotnar Institute of Musculoskeletal Sciences, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrew J CarrOxford NIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16895Medical Research Council MC_PC_12020Medical Research Council MC_PC_14103
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding changes in the placebo arm is essential for correct design and interpretation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It is assumed that placebo response, defined as the total improvement in the placebo arm of surgical trials, is large; however, its precise magnitude and properties remain to be characterized. To the best of our knowledge, the temporal changes in the placebo arm have not been investigated. The aim of this paper was to determine, in surgical RCTs, the magnitude of placebo response and how it is affected by duration of follow-up.

methodsThe databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from their inception to 20 October 2015 for studies comparing the efficacy of a surgical intervention with placebo. Inclusion was not limited to any particular condition, intervention, outcome or patient population. The magnitude of placebo response was estimated using standardized mean differences (SMDs). Study estimates were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Potential sources of heterogeneity were evaluated using stratification and meta-regression.

resultsDatabase searches returned 88 studies, but for 41 studies SMDs could not be calculated, leaving 47 trials (involving 1744 participants) eligible for inclusion. There were no temporal changes in placebo response within the analysed trials. Meta-regression analysis showed that duration of follow-up did not have a significant effect on the magnitude of the placebo response and that the strongest predictor of placebo response was subjectivity of the outcome. The pooled effect in the placebo arm of studies with subjective outcomes was large (0.64, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.8) and remained significantly different from zero regardless of the duration of follow-up, whereas for objective outcomes, the effect was small (0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26) or non-significant across all time points.

conclusionsThis is the first study to investigate the temporal changes of placebo response in surgical trials and the first to investigate the sources of heterogeneity of placebo response. Placebo response in surgical trials was large for subjective outcomes, persisting as a time-invariant effect throughout blinded follow-up. Therefore, placebo response cannot be minimized in these types of outcomes through their appraisal at alternative time points. The analyses suggest that objective outcomes may be preferable as trial end-points. Where subjective outcomes are of primary interest, a placebo arm is necessary to control for placebo response.

Indexed as

Placebo EffectResearch DesignSurgical Procedures, OperativeEndpoint DeterminationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeMeta-analysisPlacebosRandomized controlled trialsSurgerySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27955685
PMCPMC5154040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.